Discourse and creativity Book or Report Section 

Accepted Version 

Jones, R. (2012) Discourse and creativity. In: Jones, R. (ed.) Discourse and creativity. Routledge, London, pp. 1­13. ISBN 9781408251881 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/66524/ 

It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. 

Publisher: Routledge 

All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement  . 

www.reading.ac.uk/centaur   

CentAUR 

Central Archive at the University of Reading 

Reading’s research outputs online

1

Chapter 1

Discourse and Creativity

Rodney H. Jones

This collection presents a range of different perspectives on the relationship

between discourse and creativity. It is divided into four sections, each

focusing on a different type of discourse: The first section explores literary

discourse, the second focuses on creativity in corporate and professional

discourse, the third on creativity in multimodal discourse of various kinds,

including advertising graphics, fine arts and music, with the final section

addressing the impact of new technologies on creative texts and practices.

In bringing together studies of creativity in such a wide variety of genres,

media and modes from poetry to amateur skateboarding videos, and from

such a variety of perspectives in discourse studies, from more traditional

literary stylistics to newer approaches like multimodal and mediated

discourse analysis, this volume aims to explore the different kinds of

contributions discourse analysis can make to our understanding of creative

products, the social and psychological processes that go into making them,

and the ways they help to shape the identities, relationships and institutions

that make up our societies.

2

What is Creativity?

In the last two decades, the notion of ‘creativity’ has found its way into

nearly every facet of human life, from education to management. A hundred

years ago, creativity was seen primarily as the province of artists (poets,

painters, composers) and of God. Nowadays, everyone is expected to be

creative. A cursory search of the British National Corpus of written and

spoke English finds ‘creative’ collocating with such diverse words as

accounting, bankruptcy, competition, governance, management,

manufacturing, privatization, recreation and relationships. The last fifty

years has seen a proliferation of popular books, courses, and position papers

from governments and other institutions on how to make people, businesses,

organizations and societies more creative.

This ‘democratization of creativity’ (Maybin and Swann, 2007) is also

reflected in academic research in a range of disciplines such as psychology,

sociology, anthropology, and linguistics, which has turned its attention to

the everyday creative, practices of ordinary people. In such studies,

creativity is, in the words of Ron Carter (2004:13), seen ‘not a capacity of

special people but a special capacity of all people.”

Of course, not all creativity is ‘created equal’. There is a qualitative

difference between writing a symphony and creatively altering a recipe

when one has run out of sugar. To capture this difference, Boden (2004)

famously distinguished between historical creativity and psychological

creativity, or, as others have called them, ‘big C Creativity’ and ‘small c

3

creativity’. ‘Big C Creativity’ refers to the creativity of world changing

works of art or scientific discoveries that alter the way people think about a

certain problem or domain, whereas ‘small c creativity’ refers the creativity

evident in everyday problem solving, joking and verbal play: avoiding a

traffic jam or coming up with a good pick up line at a bar. Whereas ‘big C

Creativity’ is seen as a sign of genius, ‘small c creativity’ is seen as a sign a

mental health, a necessary competence for getting along in the world.

The problem with these definitions is that there is a lot in-between the

works of Shakespeare and a well-delivered apology to one’s in-laws. Many

(indeed most) efforts in art and literature that aspire to the greatness of ‘big

C creativity’ sadly miss the mark, and many everyday acts of creativity end

up, sometimes unintentionally, having a major impact on the way people

think and interact with one another, even if it is often in a rather limited

social circle. Most of what is presented as creativity in the following

chapters occupies this middle ground. There is poetry (not all of it ‘great’)

and music and painting, but there is also advertising, corporate and public

relations writing, and the creative practices of young people using digital

technologies.

This problem around what counts as ‘creative’ and what does not exposes

an even more fundamental confusion in the way we talk about creativity.

When we use the word ‘creativity’, are we talking about a property of a

particular creative product -- a text or an object of art or the expression of a

scientific theory -- or are we describing a kind of process, what an

4

individual or group of people do to come up with a creative product or

inventive solution to a problem? This is to say, does creativity reside in texts

(and other social artifacts) or does it reside in people?

Most studies in the humanities, in literary and art criticism, have taken an

almost exclusively product based approach to creativity. While some have

sought to contextualize creative works in their social or historical contexts

or to glean from them evidence of the workings of the artist’s mind, the

starting point has nearly always been the text.

In the social sciences, on the other hand, particularly in psychology,

scholars have been more interested in the creative process. Psychological

studies of scientific creativity (see for example Simonton, 1988; Grubner

and Davis, 1988) and artistic creativity (see for example Getzels and

Csikszentmihalyi, 1976) have focused on mental processes and cognitive

models. Some like Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer (1995) and Runco (1990)

have offered theories of the ‘stages’ of the creative process as it occurs in an

individual’s consciousness. Others have taken a more socio-cultural or

interpersonal approach to creative processes, seeing them as not just taking

place in the minds of the individuals but also in the interaction between

individuals and their social and cultural environments. Here we could

include Harriington’s (1990) ecological approach, the interactionist model

of Woodman and Schoenfeldt (1990), and the systems approach of

Csikszentmihalyi (1990).

5

Thus far, however, there has not been a clearly articulated perspective which

integrates approaches which focus on the creative properties of products (by

which we mean primarily ‘texts’, whether they be verbal, visual or

expressed in some other semiotic mode) and the processes through which

they come into being. Not only have product based approaches not

adequately addressed issues of production and consumption, but process

based approaches – which have typically proceeded by examining the

practices of ‘creative individuals’ such as renowned artists and scientists –

have been less effective in clearly identifying the concrete features in these

individuals’ achievements which make them creative. Even within the

process approach, there remains a gap between those who take a more

cognitive or intrapsychic perspective and those who take a more socio-

cultural or interpersonal perspective (John-Steiner 1992).

It is the premise of this volume that discourse analysis, particularly as it has

developed in past thirty years through contact with other disciplines like

cultural studies, cognitive psychology, sociology and anthropology, can

make a significant contribution to bridging these gaps. Nearly all of the

chapters in this book deal explicitly with the creative processes that go into

the production and interpretation of discourse, sometimes focusing more on

cognitive processes, as in the chapters by Stockwell and Forceville, and

sometimes more on social processes, as in the chapters by Swann and Jones.

At the same time, all of them enter this exploration of process through the

analysis of creative products – discourse – and it is in the concrete features

of discourse that evidence for these social and cognitive processes is found.

6

Moreover, while some of the scholars included here emphasize the

psychological aspects of these processes and some the social aspects,

discourse itself serves as a link between the two, the site at which is played

out the eternal tension between what the individual wishes to think or do or

express and what his or her society or culture deems appropriate or

meaningful or ‘creative’.

‘Language and Creativity’ vs. ‘Discourse and

Creativity’

There has been considerable interest over the years in various sub-fields of

linguistics in the notion of creativity. It might, in fact, be argued that

creativity is at the very core of language itself, the ‘essential property’ of

which is, according to Chomsky (1965: 6) ‘that it provides the means for

expressing indefinitely many thoughts and for reacting appropriately in an

indefinite range of new situations.’

In the areas of applied linguistics and sociolinguistics, interest in creativity

has led scholars in two distinct directions, some focusing on the application

of linguistic principles to the analysis of texts that are a priori deemed

‘creative’ such as literary works and advertising slogans, and others

focusing more on the creative and playful features of everyday language.

Scholars who take as their objects of study of literature include literary

stylisticians such as Fowler (1996), Leech and Short (1981), Widdowson

(1975) and Toolan (1998) who apply the tools of linguistics to the analysis

7

of literary language. While some working in this tradition have endeavored

to focus on aspects of language use normally associated with ‘discourse’

such as pragmatics (Black, 2006), speech acts (Pratt, 1977), interpersonal

politeness (Magnusson, 1999), conversational structures (Norrick, 2000),

and schema (Cook, 1994), most work in this area is primarily product

based, defining creativity as a function of ‘patterns of formal features’ and

‘linguistic idiosyncrasies of particular texts’ (Cook, 1998: 205) rather than

as a function of the processes that go into making those texts or how those

texts are used to take actions in broader socio-cultural contexts.

Approaches which focus less on traditional ‘creative texts’ and more on the

creativity of everyday language are perhaps best represented by the work of

Ron Carter who, in his 2004 book Language and Creativity: The Art of

Everyday Talk and elsewhere (Carter , 1999; Carter and McCarthy, 2004)

argues that features associated with literary texts like word play, rhyme,

metaphor, simile, hyperbole, understatement, irony, repetition and

parallelism are actually common features in the everyday spoken English of

ordinary people. The hard and fast distinction between literary and non-

literary language is, he contends, artificial and unhelpful; literariness is

more usefully seen as a ‘cline’ from, to use the terminology discussed

above, the ‘small c creativity’ of commonplace talk to the ‘big C Creativity’

of the literary canon. Other researchers working in the same vein include

Cook (2000), Crystal (1998) and Maybin and Swann (2006, 2007).

Like literary stylistics, linguistic approaches to everyday creativity have also

8

made use of principles from discourse analysis. Carter, for example,

addresses not just the literary features of everyday talk but also the

communicative functions of these features in different kinds of social

contexts and in different forms of social interaction. On the whole, however,

most work in this tradition is also primarily product oriented, concerning

itself almost exclusively with ‘poetic language’, in the sense that Jakobson

(1960: 356) meant the term as a ‘focus on the message for its own sake’

rather than on the role of the message in broader social processes. Even

when they take socio-pragmatic aspects of language use into account,

researchers in this paradigm tend to focus on the social functions of creative

language (by which they usually mean ‘literary-like’ language) rather than

the function of language (of all kinds) in performing creative acts.

How, then, does the ‘discourse and creativity’ approach represented in this

book differ from the approaches described above? To answer this question it

is necessary first to understand what we mean by discourse. While all of the

authors in this book might answer that question slightly differently, most

definitions of discourse in the context of applied linguistics and

sociolinguistics draw on three broad conceptualizations of language:

language beyond the level of the sentence or clause; language in use; and

language as part of a broader range of social practices associated with power

and the social construction of knowledge. It is important to stress that these

three conceptualizations of language are not so much separate and mutually

exclusive ‘definitions of discourse’ as they are different aspects of the same

phenomenon, none of which can be properly understood without reference

9

to the others. Nearly all contemporary approaches to discourse take all three

of these aspects into account, though they might focus more on one or

another of them.

The first conceptualization -- language beyond the sentence -- can be traced

back to the linguist Zellig Harris (1952), who in the early fifties used the

term ‘discourse’ to describe the next level in an analytical hierarchy of

morphemes, clauses and sentences. What Harris proposed was a method of

analyzing language beyond the sentence by attending to the distribution and

combination of various linguistic features throughout longer stretches of

text. This approach, however, is not just an extension of the Russian

formalists’ search for intra-textual regularities. Even in Harris’s early

formulation, patterns of linguistic features beyond the clause need to be

further related to patterns of behavior beyond the text itself. In his seminal

1952 paper he proposes ‘discourse analysis’ as a means of addressing two

inter-related problems, the first arising from the fact that most models of

descriptive linguistics stop at the level of the sentence, and the second

arising from the need to correlate ‘culture’ and language, that is, to

understand the connection between linguistic and non-linguistic behavior.

The implication of a view of discourse as ‘language beyond the sentence’

for a ‘discourse and creativity’ approach is that in such an approach

creativity is never seen as a matter of isolated instances of ‘poetic’ language,

but rather as a matter of how all the features of a text, poetic or not, work

together to form an effective whole, and further, how this whole interacts

10

with the social context in which it is situated. In other words, a pun, a

metaphor, or an instance of rhyme or parallelism are not considered creative

in themselves but rather are seen as creative insofar as they fit into larger

patterns of structure and meaning.

This search for patterns in texts is, of course, not unique to discourse

analysis. It is also central to literary stylistics in the more traditional sense.

This practice of pattern seeking, of relating smaller parts to larger wholes,

however, is the necessary starting point for a ‘discourse and creativity’

approach and for all of the chapters in this volume. It is fitting, then, that the

book begins with Michael Toolan’s treatment of repetition in poetry, a

treatment that illustrates the attention to patterning so central to the

conceptualization of discourse we are developing it in this book while at the

same time paying tribute to traditional stylistics.

Implicit in this analytical stance towards creativity is also the notion that

underpinning the creative process itself is the ability to recognize and

exploit patterns in our experience of the world and in the semiotic systems

within which we work. Bohm (1998), for example, in his treatment of

scientific creativity, defines the creative process as one of perceiving new

orders of relationships in old structures and of linking previous unrelated

ideas, concepts or elements into new patterns. From this perspective, the

relationship of patterning to creativity is double edged. On the one hand

creativity involves understanding and being able to exploit old patterns,

structures and rules, and on the other hand it involves breaking out of old

11

patterns and coming up with new ones. As Thurlow reminds us in his

chapter, ‘creative practice always emerges out of the dialectical tension

between fixity and mobility, constraint and freedom, convention and

innovation, stricture and defiance, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and, in the

case of language, between “grammar” and “poetry”.’

The second conceptualization of language, that of ‘language in use,’ is most

commonly associated with approaches to discourse which examine, as

Austin (1962) famously put it, how we ‘do things with words.’ Approaches

like, pragmatics, conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, and

Austin’s speech act theory all see discourse itself as a kind of social action

and explore how people use it to both make sense of and to alter the

circumstances of their social and material worlds. More recent approaches

to discourse such as mediated discourse analysis (Jones and Jones et al., this

volume, Morrison et al., this volume, Norris and Jones 2005), and

multimodal interaction analysis (see Norris 2004 and this volume)

influenced by the work of Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978), have

gone even further in privileging social action as the unit of analysis,

considering language as only one of a host of possible ‘meditational means’

which people use to take action in the world.

The implications of this view of discourse for a ‘discourse and creativity’

approach is that creativity is seen as residing not just in language itself but

in the actions people take with language. There may, therefore, be nothing

intrinsically ‘creative’ or ‘poetic’ about a piece of language. What may be

12

‘creative’, rather, may have more to do with the strategic way it is used to

solve a problem, alter a situation or realign a set of social relationships. This

view of discourse, in other words, takes us beyond the analysis of creative

products to the analysis of the creative processes associated with them.

These processes include not just the creative ways discourse is deployed to

take situated social action, but also the processes through which creative

texts are produced and interpreted, processes that often involve complex

chains of social actions negotiated among diverse sets of social actors (see

Jones et al. this volume) using a range of different meditational means (see

Morrison et. al, this volume).

Fairclough (1992) refers to these complex chains of action as ‘discourse

processes’, which he defines as the sociocognitive processes by which the

producers of texts draw upon and transform past conventions and prior texts

to create new meanings, and the consumers of texts appropriate and adapt

these meanings based on their past understandings and experiences and their

present circumstances. And so again, the tension between the old and the

new, the borrowed and the original, the conventional and the subversive

arises at the center of a discourse analytical approach to creativity.

All of the chapters in this book address in some way ‘discourse processes’

or, as Norris and Jones have called them, ‘discourse in action’ (Norris and

Jones 2005). Some, like that by Jones and his colleagues and by Norris

focus on the social processes that lead to the production of creative texts and

the social construction of ‘creative individuals’. Others, like those of

13

Stockwell and Swann, focus more on processes that go into the

interpretation of creative works, Stockwell from a more cognitive

perspective and Swann from a more social one. Some, like those of Bhatia

and Gillen deal more with the strategic, socio-pragmatic aspects of

discursive action in the context of professional communication and

computer mediated communication respectively. Finally, some, like those

by van Leeuwen, Morrison and his colleagues and Jones invite us to

consider the impact of the semiotic resources and technological tools for

communication we have at our disposal on our ability to take certain kinds

of social actions and engage in certain kinds of social practices.

The third conceptualization of language in a discourse analytical approach

to creativity sees it as part of broader socially informed systems of knowing,

being and acting. This conception comes less from linguistics and more

from cultural studies and critical sociology, though it has come to occupy an

important place in linguistically based methods of discourse analysis. Gee,

uses the term ‘capital D’ discourse’ to refer to this conceptualization of

language. He defines ‘Discourses’ as ‘ways of being in the world, or forms

of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social

identities’ (1996:127). Foucault (1972), and after him, Fairclough (1992)

use the term ‘orders of discourse’ in much the same way, talking about, for

example, the ‘discourse of medicine’ and ‘the discourse of law’.

On the one hand, ‘Discourses’ or ‘orders of discourse’ impose constraints

on creativity, exerting control over what we can say, what we can think, and

14

the kinds of power relationships that play out in societies. At the same time,

‘Discourses’ are not fixed. They are vulnerable to being compromised,

undermined or transformed as they interact with other ‘Discourses’. As

Candlin and Maley (1997: 204) note, ‘Discourses’ consist of ‘internally

heterogeneous discursive practices whose boundaries are in flux,’ so as they

come into contact with other ‘Discourses’, ‘not only are novel (inter)texts

constructed, but novel (inter)discourses arise.’

These transformations occur not only though great works of art or paradigm

changing scientific discoveries, but also through the incremental everyday

actions of individuals as they strategically appropriate and combine

elements of different ‘Discourses’ in order to meet the needs of particular

moments. Fairclough (1992:97) argues that ‘as producers and interpreters

combine discursive conventions, codes and elements in new ways in

innovatory discursive events they are cumulatively producing structural

changes in the orders of discourse.’ When discourse is used creatively, it

can potentially change ‘orders of discourse’ on two levels: first on the level

of the immediate interaction by shifting the relationships of power among

participants, creativity reframing the activity that is taking place, or

otherwise creating possibilities for social action that did not exist at the

outset of the interaction, and second, on the level of society or culture by

contesting conventional ways of seeing things and opening up possibilities

for the imagining of new kinds of social identities and new kinds of social

practices (Jones 2010). Thurlow (this volume) captures the spirit of these

small and subversive, though nonetheless profound acts of creativity in his

15

invocation of Michel de Certeau, who wrote:

Every culture proliferates along its margins. Irruptions take place that

are called ‘creations’ in relation to stagnancies. Bubbling out of

swamps and bogs, a thousand flashes at once scintillate and are

extinguished all over the surface of a society. ... Daily life is scattered

with marvels, a froth on the long rhythms of language and history that

is as dazzling as that of writers and artists. (1997: 139–142)

It is chiefly this conceptualization of discourse that helps a ‘discourse and

creativity’ approach make the connection between ‘small c creativity’, those

tiny everyday creative actions we take with ‘small d discourse’, and ‘big C

Creativity’, the ‘world-changing’ aspect of creativity through which new

‘big D Discourses’ are formed and transformed.

All of the chapters in this volume engage to some extent with this

dimension of discourse, considering how texts and the social actions

associated with them fit into and interact with broader social formations and

systems of value. Stockwell, for example, discusses how creative texts press

readers into taking ethical stances and how reading itself becomes a kind of

moral act. Similarly, both Stockwell and Swann consider, each from their

different perspectives, how engaging with creative texts is not just a matter

of resolving meaning but an experience of ‘world-building’. One could

hardly find a better example of how ‘Discourses’ are mixed to form creative

new ‘(inter)discourses’ than Bhatia’s work, reported here and elsewhere

16

(Bhatia, 2008) on the strategic mixing of the discourses of law, accounting,

finance and public relations in corporate disclosure reports. Thurlow, in his

chapter, provides and excellent illustration of discursive contestation in his

description of how the authentic, vernacular creativities of young people

using computers are resemiotized by the mainstream media and commercial

and educational institutions as ‘exotic and outrageous, foolish and pointless,

offensive and menacing.’ Finally, both Norris and Jones concern themselves

with how creative products like paintings and skateboarding videos function

as cultural tools for the formation of individual and group identities

spanning timescales from the discrete moment by moment actions of

everyday life to the longer timescales of ‘artistic careers.’

In a sense, it is this engagement with broader issues of social and

institutional practices and power, what Thrlow (this volume) calls the

‘cultural politics’ of creativity, that most distinguishes a discourse approach

to creativity from more language-based approaches. It is an approach which,

as Van Leeuwen (this volume) points out, must be both descriptive and

sociological, must endeavor to explain not just ‘how people produce and use

semiotic resources, but…also… how these uses come about, how they are

taught or otherwise acquired, regulated, debated, (and) changed,’ and how

‘new semiotic resources and practices and new uses of existing semiotic

resources are invented.’

Discourse Analysis as Creativity

The contributors to this volume not only illuminate the relationship between

17

discourse and creativity in a wide range of diverse domains from literary

reading to jazz improvisation, they also demonstrate the creativity of

discourse analysis itself as it has developed over the past half century and

continues to develop. In recent years the field of discourse studies has

significantly broadened its scope by forging interdisciplinary bridges with

sociology, cultural studies, social practice theory, visual communication

studies, media studies and cognitive psychology. Consequently, it has taken

on board new concerns and priorities, many of which are represented in this

volume.

Discourse analysis has, for example, become increasingly interested not just

in how texts are put together but also in how people interpret and use

discourse in situated social interactions, a theme taken up by nearly all of

the authors represented here. It has also become more interested in issues of

identity construction, issues which are featured in the chapters by Norris and

Jones. It has to some degree also participated in the recent ‘cognitive turn’

in the social sciences (Stockwell, this volume), evidenced in the chapters by

Stockwell and Forceville. It has, in addition, increasingly come to

acknowledge the importance of modes other than language in the production

of meaning, illustrated by the chapters by Forceville, Norris and van

Leeuwen. Finally, it has started to explore what happens to meanings, social

practices and social identities when they are mediated through digital

technologies, an issue addressed by Thrulow, Gillen, Morrison and his

colleagues and Jones.

18

In fact, for most of the scholars represented in this volume, discourse

analysis as they practice it is itself an example of a creative (inter)discourse,

an inventive blending of theories and insights from multiple fields of human

inquiry. These new, hybrid approaches to discourse often demand the

development of innovative new ways of working which involve mixing text

analysis with more ethnographic engagement with people as they go about

undertaking their everyday acts of creativity.

What this volume shows is not just that discourse analysis has something

valuable to add to our understanding of creative practices and creative

processes, but that the study of discourse, indeed the study of language itself

is, as Chomsky noted nearly fifty years ago, ultimately and fundamentally

the study of creativity. As Van Leeuwen points out in his contribution to

this volume: ‘the semiotician and the artist travel along parallel paths and

they might as well talk and work together.’

References

Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do Things with Words: The William James

Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, J. O. Urmson (Ed.),

Oxford: Clarendon.

Bhatia, V. (2008) ‘Creativity and accessibility in written professional

discourse’ World Englishes 27(3/4), pp. 319–326.

19

Black, E. (2006) Pragmatic Stylistics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Boden, M. A. (2004) The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms 2nd

edition, New York: Routledge.

Bohm, D. (1998) On Creativity, London: Routledge.

Candlin, C. N. and Maley, Y. (1997) ‘Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity in

the Discourse of Alternative Dispute Resolution’ in The Construction of

Professional Discourse, Gunnarsson, B-L., Linnel, P. and Nordberg, B.

(Eds.), London: Longman, pp. 201–22.

Carter, R. (1999) ‘Common language: Corpus, creativity and cognition’

Language and Literature 8 (3), pp. 195–216.

Carter, R. (2004) Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk,

London. New York: Routledge.

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2004) ‘Talking, creating: Interactional

language, creativity and context’ Applied Linguistics 25 (1), pp. 62–88.

Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge,

Massachusetts: MIT Press

20

Cook, G. (1994) Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and

Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, Guy (1998) ‘Linguistics and language teaching’ in The Encyclopedic

Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, Johnson. K. and Johnson, H. (Eds.),

Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 198–207.

Cook, G. (2000) Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Crystal, D. (1998) Language Play, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.

New York: HarperCollins.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Sawyer, R. K. (1995) ‘Creative insight: The

social dimension of a solitary moment’ in The Nature of Insight, Sternberg,

R. J. and Davidson J. E. (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 329–363

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Fowler, R. (1996) Linguistic Criticism, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

21

Getzels, J. W., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976) The Creative Vision. New

York: Wiley.

Gruber, H. E., and Davis, S. N. (1988) ‘Inching our way up Mount

Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking’ in The

Nature of Creativity, Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), New York: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 243–270.

Harrington, D.M. (1990) ‘The ecology of creativity: A psychological

perspective’ in Theories of Creativity, Runco M.A. and Albert, R.S. (Eds.),

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 143-169.

Harris, Z. (1952) ‘Discourse analysis’ Language 28 (1), pp. 1-30.

Jones, R. H. (2010) ‘Creativity and discourse’ World Englishes 29 (4),

pp.467-480.

John-Steiner, V. (1992) ‘Creative lives, creative tensions’ Creativity

Research Journal 5 (1), pp. 99-108.

Leech, G. and Short, M. H. (1981) Style in Fiction: A Linguistic

Introduction to English Fictional Prose, London: Longman.

22

Magnusson, L. (1999) Shakespeare and Social Dialogue: Dramatic

Language and Elizabethan Letters, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Maybin, J. and Swann, J. (2006) The Art of English: Everyday Creativity,

Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Macmillan.

Maybin, J. and Swann, J. (2007) ‘Everyday creativity in language:

textuality, contextuality and critique’ Applied Linguistics 28 (4): pp. 497-

517.

Norrick, N. (2000) Conversational Narrative, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Norris, S. (2004) Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological

Framework, London: Routledge.

Norris, S. and Jones, R. (Eds.) (2005) Discourse in Sction: Introducing

Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

Pratt, M.L. (1977) Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse,

Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific Genius: A Psychology of Science, New

York: Cambridge University Press.

23

Toolan, M. (1998) Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics.

London: Hodder Arnold.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher

Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1975) Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature, London:

Longman.

Woodman, R. W., and Schoenfeldt. L. F. (1990) ‘An interactionist model of

creative behavior’ Journal of Creative Behavior 24, pp. 279-290.